Short: Who rigged the economy?

I was really hoping that I would get some good insights into how the economy was rigged from this article. After all, it's published on Vox, one of the better site for political analysis.

Alas, the article is a big disappointment. When I wonder which people are using the rules or gaming the system to enrich themselves, I think about politicians, developers, Wall Street types, etc. I was hoping to find out more about how they do it. Instead, this article points at these enemies of fair economics:

• Dentists
• Owners of beauty schools
• Massage therapists
• Arkansas and its laws on nurse practitioners

WTF? These are the people who have rigged the system so that there aren't many good jobs anymore? The author can't seriously expect me to believe this, can he?

Instead of this being a tell-all article, this reads like a low-rent libertarian rant against licensing. Such rants have their place, but licensure isn't what has rigged the economy. Come on!

Then I did a google check of the author, Will Wilkinson. Yep, he used to work for the Cato Institute. The article is exactly a low-rent libertarian rant. And I wasted my time reading it.

Ayn Rand is Nietzsche

Nietzsche is commonly credited with offering an alternative morality, where the supermen didn't have to follow the same rules as the sheep the rest of mankind. I haven't read much Nietzsche, so this may be a misrepresentation, but let's pretend it's accurate.

Ayn Rand thought that the bureaucrats and leeches were holding back the greatness of society. This is somewhat a tenet of libertarianism, that we all need to be free to soar as high as possible, free from the regulations that would tether us to mediocrity. Those tethers include anything beyond minimal taxes, gun restrictions, licensing for professions, FDA drug testing, regulations, and paperwork showing compliance with vast numbers of government rules, etc. They also include the social safety net. I'm going to focus on the safety net.

Some people need the social safety net. That's why we have it. Before governments got into that business, there were churches and charities that tried to handle the load but were often overwhelmed. I assume charities were overwhelmed. Perhaps they weren't and it was just a trick some liberal busybodies dreamed up in order to make jobs for themselves. But I bet charities were frequently overwhelmed.

So we've had and needed a social safety net. Yet Ayn Rand was against that net. I can understand if she thinks it's better never to use the safety net, but why should it not even exist? It exists because people have needed it in the past, some need it now, and other will need it in the future. But other people's needs are unimportant to the Ayn Rand archetype. The Ayn Rand hero will never be that needy person. The superman doesn't need the safety net, and the world should be for the supermen, not for the sheep. So, no safety nets for you sheep either.

In the Ayn Rand view, it's too bad that the sheep of Europe even pushed for these safety nets starting back in the 1800's. The sheep of America followed. That's a problem, having these sheep make decisions about what government is going to do. They make sheep-like decisions. The sheep become more sheep-like and dependent, and the supermen are weighed down. Government should be limited so the sheep can't decide what's to be done. [By the way, doesn't this sound suspiciously feudal? The nobility should make the decisions, and the peasants should shut up and be good mules.]

*************************************************

I hope I've shown a strong similarity between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Neitzsche. Perhaps I'm overreaching here, but I don't think so. I wondered for a long time why people are so adamantly against Social Security, a program that has such broad appeal. Why isn't it good enough for anti-SS folks that large numbers of people want the program? Isn't that democracy?

No, democracy isn't a good enough reason. First and foremost, the country should be as free as possible. That's what libertarians strive for. Nothing, not the wishes of the majority for a social safety net, should overrule the primary guiding principle of the country.

On one hand I can see the logic in this. On the other hand, in practice the people of this country (as in "we, the people") took the country in the direction it has gone. This country wasn't invaded and hijacked by Russians who changed our government by fiat. WE changed it. And there was a logic to the changes that we made.

So the libertarians aren't the only ones who have a logical, reasonable view of how our government should work. They have lots of competition, and they've been losing. We, the People, don't want the Ayn Rand or Nietzsche philosophy. The elections tell us that.

 Image: aplaceformom.com

Recommence circular firing squad

So today Reince Priebus released the report on post-mortem on how the GOP lost the 2012 election. I thought it was a surprisingly realistic first step for the GOP, who haven't been exactly clear on the objective world for the past two years.

Some ideas I agree with:

• Don't piss off women so much. They're not just vessels for babies... now that they have the vote.. and jobs.. and that damned independent streak. They have less time for news (due to tons of other responsibilities), but word does get around if a party doesn't care whether women get contraception or not. Lots of women pay attention to that.
• Be welcoming to minorities. This will be harder because the GOP is the epitome of a white men's country club. Sure, there's room for a few more tokens to get up on stage and milk the party for support. But how many minorities are eager to sign up after watching the disrespect leveled at Obama and Holder and Sotomayor. Even white males who step out of bounds are hunted down like (as) RINOs. This is not a tolerant party. Good luck on winning skittish minority voters.
• Pass immigration reform. This could be a no-win situation for the GOP. Latinos aren't voting for Republicans in large numbers because the GOP are nasty to immigrants, who are largely Latino. But if there's a path to citizenship, that will mean more lower-wage and minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic. Tough dilemma--do you take the risk and try to turn it around? Or do you hold tight to principles and circle the drain?
• Shorter primary with fewer debates. Those debates did show the country a lot, including that audiences could be stacked, or they may be just a bunch of random yahoos. But it certainly was a pander-fest. A shorter campaign would help a little, but the bigger problem is pandering to the shrill conservative media. I don't think there were many suggestions about that.

The response from parts of the conservative spectrum were much uglier than my reaction. Limbaugh says "I’m sorry, but we’re not disrespectful to anybody." HAHAHAHA. Rush is personally disrespectful to the vast majority of humanity, so let's just say that he's so acclimated to disrespect that he doesn't smell it anymore.

It looks to me as though Priebus's outreach to the Ron Paul liberty wing is falling flat. You really need to read the hair-raising comments here. They include throwing someone under a lawnmower, stabbings, kissing back sides, and a few Jew comments too. But definitely, there is no way the Paul wing is going support fewer caucuses, another Priebus proposal. The base at HotAir isn't happy either, with the general sentiment being that it's another way for the establishment to muzzle the base.

I won't tell the GOP what to do. They aren't my party, and I've learned from experience that you can't manage anyone else's life from the outside. I hope they make decisions that are beneficial for them and for the country as a whole, whatever those decisions will be. So, best of luck, GOP. Try not to screw it up.

How the hell do I fix this?

Image: go.bloomberg.com

Extras. An insider at The Weekly Standard has written a moderate-length analysis of the GOP problem with a suggested, but unlikely, solution. A shorter version here to whet your interest.

The HotAir bloggers support the gist of the post-mortem. The commenters want to hang the traitors to GOP principles.

Erick Erickson at RedState: 'Meh. It just wasn't our year.' This response confuses me because it's completely anti-analytical.

Do libertarians hate America as liberals do?

I was in my car listening to a segment of "Alternative Radio." Morris Berman, a leftist author, was chuckling about how stupid and/or corrupt Americans are. It seems that we have no redeeming features.

I grew up with a lot of America-bashing, but it was all idle talk. Not one of those who blamed the US for horrible situations across the globe ever emigrated to a more moral country. Instead, it was like a liberal parlor game--what outrage has America committed now?

I don't play this game. I'm aware and unafraid to point out the wrong that America has done, but also to point out what it's done right. I also realized that despite the incessant complaints I grew up with, I love this country and there isn't another place I'd rather be. This is my home, for better or worse, for richer or poorer. We have an incredibly rich history (good and bad all mixed up together) and many aspects that make me incredibly proud.

Morris Berman doesn't seem to feel the same way. He bashed just about everything after WWII. Also, the core of Americans is rotten. I didn't catch the details there, but I bet the evidence he presented was probably one-sided.

What's funny is that I hear echoes of this in what libertarians say about the growth and depredations of government. Ron Paul can talk on and on about how America invades other countries and that causes blowback and also the federal government is regulating all this dang stuff. However, when Ron Paul does this, he doesn't sound like a pompous, aging, radical blowhard hypocrite.

There is an important difference--the libertarians don't bash the American people. Dang pompous liberals, please take note.

The Libertarian choice of rights

I notice that many libertarians are very proud of their fundamental belief and emphasis on rights. They deserve to be, because they take a principled stand to defend these rights even if outcomes are adverse. No profiling, no surveillance of possible terrorists without specific cause, so violations of other countries sovereignty to fight terrorists harbored within their borders--these policies would seriously hamper anti-terrorist efforts that have kept reprisals on US targets (targets meaning US lives and property) quite low.

I acknowledge their idealism, though I don't fully support it. But in one area, they have seriously made a poor choice. They put property rights above human rights, particularly the fundamental right to be treated as equal. So "All men are created equal" takes a back seat to "life, liberty, and property." This choice shows in their lack of support for the Civil Rights Act, which requires public accommodations (businesses open to the public) not to discriminate against classes of people who often suffer from discrimination. So you can no longer bar blacks from your lunch counter, Jews from your apartment building, or Catholics from your factory.

I don't understand how libertarians choose property rights ("it's my business, and I'll run it the way I want") over the civil right not to be discriminated against in a public venue ("unless I do something wrong, I should have the same rights in public spaces as anyone else").

It's quite possible that I don't know what I'm talking about here. I haven't delved into libertarian philosophy and have absolutely no plans to. But like most of my posts, this is based on honest observation and reflection of what I've seen in news and on the web. I'm not sure there are other ways to interpret it. (Example: Rand Paul comments about not supporting the Civil Rights Act.)

If I'm wrong, I'm counting on libertarian readers to set me straight, and to defend their position with reasoned arguments. That means that you should be prepared to answer my main point, which is property rights shouldn't have priority over personal liberty.

Photo: wn.com

Open thread: What's next for libertarians?

Ron Paul kind of sputtered in this campaign. He was great in the debates, but disappointing at the polls. Although he had a better showing than 2008, his philosophies weren't setting the pace in the primaries. Will libertarians make a difference in this election cycle? What will happen after the election? Your take.